Managing
Places And Spaces For Living In The 21st Century:
Perspectives From The Netherlands On Becoming Sustainableby Margaretha de Boer
Former Minister of Ministry For Housing,
Spatial Planning And The Environment, The Netherlands

Royal Netherlands
Embassy, Washington DC: June 4, 1998

I want to thank you all for joining us today.
I am looking forward to an exciting, full and open exchange of ideas. We in the
Netherlands are particularly enthusiastic about sharing some of what we are doing
and the challenges we face as we move into the new millennium.

Today I will discuss our vision for a sustainable
future, a bit about the evolution of the vision and the strategic steps we've
taken to align government and industry to the vision.

But first, I want to discuss the issue of relevancy.
Why should the Netherlands' approach to the environment be of interest to those
of you who live in the United States? After all -- some of you may be thinking
-- the Netherlands is just a small country of 16 million people with a tendency
towards consensus and a tolerance for high tax rates. How could strategies for
success in the Netherlands possibly apply to such a large, complex country like
the United States?

Let me assure you, there is more to the story
than this! The Netherlands shares much in common with the United States, especially
at the state level. Holland is a densely populated country, with some 420 people
per square kilometer as compared with 27 in this country. As gateways to Europe,
Rotterdam is one of the world's busiest ports and Schiphol one of its busiest
airports. We find ourselves downstream and downwind of significant cross-border
pollution that requires working with our neighbors, near and far, on setting environmental
goals and implementing common environmental standards. Our economy is still highly
dependent on energy intensive, emissions-producing industries in the following
sectors: transportation, chemicals, primary metals, energy, oil refining, food
products and intensive farming such as pig, cattle and poultry breeding.

Today, you will hear a lot about our consensus-based
approach to environmental issues in the Netherlands, with strong industry and
government cooperation as well as increasing participation from multiple stakeholder
groups. But it was not always so. When the Netherlands began to address environmental
issues, it was among the most polluted industrial countries in the world. From
the late sixties through the mid-eighties, the government took a far more confrontational
and adversarial approach to these problems. For those of you here in industry
or government, our command and control approach would seem very familiar. How
we moved from this approach, however, to where we are today, is I hope of interest
to you and is something that my colleagues and I will be addressing throughout
the day.

Relative to many countries, Holland is small
-- slightly smaller than Maryland and New Jersey combined. Our global environmental
footprint, however, is substantially larger. In calculating the Netherlands' environmental
footprint for imports and tourism alone, we arrive at a landmass about 8 times
larger than Holland itself.

It may surprise you that the Netherlands is
the third largest direct foreign investor in the United States. The recently announced
$2.7 billion purchase of your local supermarket chain, Giant Foods, by the Dutch
company, Royal Ahold, is a good example of the sorts of investments that are being
made here. So when we think about reducing our footprint, we must think about
it in terms of our business investments, trade and tourism with the United States
and elsewhere around the globe.

Our countries have other common economic interests.
The Netherlands has become an economic powerhouse among its EU peers; many of
our neighbors struggle with limited economic growth and high unemployment. Our
economic successes have become a model they look to. Yet we have done this over
the same time frame in which we have reduced the environmental impact for much
of our economy. The United States has also enjoyed some successes on environment
while enjoying an expanding economy. Most residents of Los Angeles were probably
pleased and delighted to discover mountains out their backdoor -- mountains that
for decades had been shrouded by smog. And this in a state that enjoys the world's
9th largest economy.

So, what we share is this challenge of growing
healthy economies without increasing the environmental damage associated with
past and current economic development. We call this decoupling. You will be hearing
a lot about this over the course of the day. Decoupling means maintaining a constant,
or preferably declining, level of environmental impact while growing the economy.
The vision and how we got there

Our current vision for the future of the Netherlands
is one of sustainability. But you will want to know how we got there.

Initially we addressed environmental problems
as though they could be held separate from the ways in which we addressed all
other issues of national interest, from agriculture to economic growth to spatial
planning. By the mid-eighties, however, we began to realize the need for a comprehensive
strategy for national policy planning. In 1986, with a mandate to look at causes
and effects of pollution in the coming 25 years, our national scientific research
institute for health and the environment concluded that the then current regulatory
approach could not halt continuing environmental degradation. It found that the
media specific regulations, similar to yours here in the US, rather than cleaning
up the environment, often just shifted environmental problems from one area to
another. For example, solving some water pollution problems created new ground
contamination problems from dredged sludge. Just as with re-arranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic, however, there was no halt to the overall decline in environmental
health.

The report also demonstrated that a 70-90% emissions
reduction, using 1986 base levels, would be required to adequately protect the
Netherlands' environment by the year 2010. To achieve this goal would require
a dramatic overhaul of the Dutch environmental management system. These findings,
combined with the publication in 1987 of the Brundtland report, stimulated new
thinking. As a result, the Netherlands became one of the first nations in the
world to adopt a vision for sustainable development as national policy, with a
goal to achieve this within one generation.

Implementing the vision

This notion of sustainable development appealed
to all sectors of society. The 25-year time frame was extended enough so as not
to threaten business and industry, but short enough for individuals to relate
on a personal level. With this broad support, a consensus-based, participatory
process was designed to engage all stakeholders in implementing this vision.

This then led to our first National Environmental
Policy Plan, or NEPP1. We began by setting emissions targets based on nine environmental
themes including climate change, acidification, eutrophication, groundwater depletion
and waste reduction. Also novel was our approach to industry in which we selected
the target groups most heavily associated with the emissions within the environmental
themes, based on their share of those emissions. These target groups included
consumers, agriculture, industry, refineries, energy companies, retail trade,
transport, construction, waste disposal companies and all actors in the water
cycle. We worked with each selected industry group to determine emission targets
over a five-year period. We then signed covenants with these groups committing
mutually to these targets.

There are two key elements in this approach:
one is setting the goal posts up; the other is in not moving those goalposts for
the agreed upon five-year period. These negotiated agreements, or covenants, have
become the cornerstone of our target group policies for industry. This strategy
moved us away from end-of-pipe regulations towards a very flexible, results-oriented
approach. Industry can choose for itself how to get through the goalposts, provided
they get there in the time frame given.

Over the past decade, there has been a continuous
participatory process in preparing and implementing policies, collecting feedback
on first generation policies and goals, and refining the second and third generation
plans. Over the course of the 10-year timeframe of the NEPP process, we have had
several major shifts in political parties and Cabinet composition. But the process
itself has been remarkably nonpartisan, reflecting the wide sense of ownership
among stakeholder and political groups in the planning process.

Our approach encourages full transparency, promotes
accountability, builds credibility and trust and -- most of all -- rewards pro-active,
creative problem-solving. In other words, we are moving more and more towards
market pull and away from regulatory push in addressing these complex issues.

Defining success

In my view, the success of sustainable development
will rely on proper management of three key variables: energy, biodiversity and
space. This audience needs no reminder of the impacts of energy consumption in
global warming; in air, ground and water pollution; and on our health.

The preservation of biodiversity has gained
great credibility, despite -- as the New York Times noted -- the danger of carrying
with it a bit of "postmodern sanctimony." Yet, there is no escaping
the importance of biodiversity as a concept that stresses "the interdependence
of all forms of life on earth and a new willingness to appraise the meaning of
that interdependence." We are in the midst of the sixth great extinction
of species here on earth -- but this is one for which we humans bear considerable
responsibility and one from which we ourselves will not be immune. Preservation
of biodiversity, hence, becomes one of the leading measures of sustainability.

Finally: space. And no, I do not mean reorganizing
space above the earth's atmosphere -- though at some point we will need to concern
ourselves with the bits of industrial debris we've left floating around up there.
I do mean looking at how and where we live: our families and communities; our
lives at work and at play; how we get around; the food we eat; the homes we create
whether in small apartments or large mansions; the buildings we work in -- or,
for many in our society, the homes, food and jobs we don't have. This is what
I mean when I talk about managing space for living.

Within this theme, there are three key challenges:

1. As mentioned earlier, we must explore all
possible means to combine economic growth with an improvement of our environmental
record. In the Netherlands, we have already reached some significant results.
But we are really struggling with the new target reductions in NOx and CO2 emissions.
We look forward to collaborating with our friends around the world on how to achieve
this.

2. Energy consumption, transportation and food
production remain high on the list of hurdles. These activities are at the core
of our economic system. Managing buildings better, for instance, is key to reduction
in energy consumption -- yet this is an area often overlooked. We could help each
other find ways to identify the barriers to enhanced energy efficiency of our
built environment.

3. Lastly, on this list, is the issue of the
social dimension. We cannot create sustainable futures when there is poverty,
whether in our cities, in the countryside or in developing parts of the world.
Poverty and all its side effects create shadow costs to society that are simply
not inherently sustainable. As you say here, sustainability is built on the three
"E's" of economy, ecology and equity.

Tackling the challenges

Ladies and gentlemen,

I see five main strategies for tackling these
challenges:

1. The first is science and technology. These
cannot solve all of our problems. But they are keys to maximizing eco-efficiencies,
re-engineering industrial processes, and making materials, such as photovoltaics,
affordable as common building materials.

2. The second strategy is customized implementation.
In addition to the shifts in relationship between industry and government, other
shifts have taken place between local, regional and federal government entities.
The national government has recognized the need to match local problem solving
with local accountability and authority. So our national government decentralized
much of the responsibility for environmental outcomes, which has enhanced local
and regional ownership of environmental problem solving.

3. Third is standard market-based incentives.
This includes incentives for companies that agree to covenant-based emission targets.
Voluntary management standards such as ISO 14001 drive changes throughout the
supply chain. Tradable emissions permits and benchmarking are other incentives
that can create changes in industry.

4. Strategy number four is to create sustainable
choices in the market. The government can stimulate market-based choices by introducing
new instruments and policies. Among these is shifting the tax burden from productive
factors such as labor and capital, to factors that damage our economy and environment.
You will be hearing much more about these ideas from Jan Van den Heuvel, a member
of my delegation.

5. The fifth strategy is investing in sustainable
infrastructure, buildings and communities. This is where we begin to integrate
our economic, environmental and spatial planning with equity. The government must
take a lead in these sorts of investments, to help create the demand where there
is none now. We must give priority to breakthrough uses of space, transportation
and energy that protect our natural resources and green spaces. Examples include:
maximum use of renewable energy sources; underground buildings and transportation;
for instance, we are building a new underground system to transfer flowers from
our world famous flower auction mart directly to Schiphol Airport; transportation
systems such as high speed trains and hybrid cars; for example, we are working
on high speed rail connections between vital economic centers that will partly
tunnel under the Netherlands "Green Heart" to protect the landscape.

Concluding comments

Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude.

Over the past 25 years, we in the Netherlands
have learned how to work cooperatively with corporations and citizens, institutions
and authorities to develop environmental policies. Government is no longer the
big brother that dictates environmental policy with command and control authority.
Rather, we have discovered that government's most effective role in securing better
environmental outcomes is to partner with the myriad stakeholders involved at
all levels of society; to provide guidance for the thousands of activities that
impinge on environmental quality by building consensus and a shared vision of
sustainability. Our conviction is that environmental issues concern us all. It
is everyone's responsibility to act. Therefore, let us all motivate and stimulate
people to take this responsibility.